(31-08-2015 07:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote: If you say so - though I will point out that rational skepticism is the only epistemology which can be proven to reliably get results.

9/11 truthers would likely classify themselves as rational skeptics. Folks who believe that Jesus didn't exists, many of them here, see it as derived by rational skepticism.

And it appears more frequently that rational skepticism has led many people to a perpetual state of confusion, where they seem more prone to express their lack of belief, the inabilities to believe anything, than actual results.

If rational skepticism leads a man to define himself as lacking a belief, it didn't lead him anywhere, it just got him lost.

Quote:Beyond that, I have no idea what your beliefs are, so I really can't comment. I will say, however, that you have already made several assumptions about me that you have no basis for, and it has never worked out in your favor.

It doesn't really matter. My views are derived from contemplating what it would mean if my beliefs are false., what would that say about how we perceive what's true, what's rational etc...? If I'm not thinking rationally, or clearly, than what would it mean to think rationally or clearly.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(31-08-2015 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote: 9/11 truthers would likely classify themselves as rational skeptics. Folks who believe that Jesus didn't exists, many of them here, see it as derived by rational skepticism.

That's wonderful.

The common thread here is that these people do not actually make use of rational skepticism. I can call myself a Martian all I like, but it doesn't make me one.

(31-08-2015 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote: If rational skepticism leads a man to define himself as lacking a belief, it didn't lead him anywhere, it just got him lost.

Mm. Because lacking a belief in unicorns is an unmistakable mark of the wayward soul.

(31-08-2015 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote: If I'm not thinking rationally, or clearly, than what would it mean to think rationally or clearly.

Do some reading on basic logic and fallacies. It's not hard.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

I am not saying that your narrative is completely wrong. I am saying it's incomplete. Because of it, it lack explanatory power compared to mine which I think (or at least attempted) to both explain why people develop insight and introspective skills; how those introspective skills and insight are linked to the development of rational thoughts and logic and how does this fit in the evolutionary development of the human brain. It also explain why some people have trouble with dealing with their bias and emotions while other have much less problem doing so. Rational thinking is just like fighting. Some persons are just much better than other at it, be it because of training, natural aptitude, experience or a mix of various factor.

Religious fundamentalist have an issue with rational thinking because their doctrine teach them to avoid reasoning, especially on their core beliefs. Religion is based on a relationship with things that are, to all end and purpose, inexistent (you can't see or hear God, you can't talk to the dead in heaven or hell, etc.). Someone who wants to maintain that belief need to find positive evidence for it because that's how the brain works. It needs the correct solution to that problem not a fake one. Since there is no positive evidence two things can happen, deconversion or they will circumvent logic, redefine terms, create smoke and mirror to rationalise their desire without ever analysing them and thus provide ad hoc proofs. Those who are better at exercising rational thoughts are those who are the most likely to deconvert or produce the most batshit crazy deep thinking philosophical mumbo jumbo to explain their beliefs.

I think your example is wrong because the guy is searching for truth. The problem is that his brain is lacking a tool to provide it to him. What's lacking between is interaction on the phone and in person is the visual input of his mother. If he closes his eyes and simply listen to her he can recognise her. If he open his eyes, his broken brain tells him that the physical person in front of him isn't his mother. He doesn't recognise her on photography either. He knows how she's supposed to look like, but he has lost the ability to compare his memory to what he actually sees and no amount of proofs can convince him because he can't verify them. It's like trying to make a blind person understand colors or expect a color blind person to recognise two colors he keeps confusing.

(31-08-2015 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote: If I were to define rational thinking, I’d define it as state in which one can see the truth clearly.

That's a perfectly dreadful definition. Rational thought may lead to the truth, but it is the manner of the search that is or isn't rational.

Quote:For me that would require not just an ability to see the truth clearly, but a truth that wants me to see it clearly.

OK, you just drove over the edge into Woo Bay. You're drowning there.

Quote:If we are a means for the cosmos to know itself, it would be a cosmos that desires us to know it.

Wow, that expression is poetic, not descriptive.

Quote:I have to believe in some sort of “spooky glue” that entwines it together, a sensation of what is true to what in fact is true.

What does that even mean?

Quote:I have no way of proving this is the case, and I have to take it on faith, to continue believing in rational thinking (which is relatively easy being a believer). This wasn’t always case, I didn’t always believe this, and was perfectly fine in accepting a materialistic account of “rational thinking” as a default. I never really thought about it, I just accepted it, it seemed like common sense, I never really bothered to think of it more critically.

Except that believing dualism is irrational.

Quote:But it’s been my introductions to dualist atheists, like Chalmers, and Nagel, that screwed this all up for me. That to reduce it all to the neurochemical level is unattainable, for a variety of reasons, some of which were illustrated here. At that level the same problem arises for “rational thinking” as it does for “free-will”.

Your opinion that explaining rational thought down to the neurochemical level is noted and dismissed as unsupportable.

Quote:If I abandoned this belief in spooky stuff, I don’t see any other viable option, than believing that things in which I find true, are elicited by an appealing sensation. If those appealing sensations were associated with another set of beliefs, I would think those where true. So when I seek what I believe to be truth, I’m just looking for things that evoke that sensation for me, things that don’t evoke that sensation are false, things that do are true.

Your body has now washed up on the shore of Woo Bay.

Quote:If that sensation is evoked when i talk to my mother on the phone, then she is in fact my mother, where as if meeting her in person, that sensation is not evoked, than she’s not my mother, but an imposter.

Sensation is not thought. Sensation arrives unbidden; we have to expend effort to make rational thought.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(31-08-2015 02:58 PM)epronovost Wrote: This demonstrate that Tomasia core beliefs are wrong in a certain way. Neuroscience, like all science, is based on methodological naturalism, which itself is based on the rules of logic. Since he doesn't have ground on science to dismiss neuroscience findings about our brain and our consciousness, he is currently attempting to dismiss the idea that rational thinking can exist. Thus that the rules of logic are fundamentally biased and aren't a more solid foundation to investigate the cosmos and our minds than faith and intuition. It's a classic case of: «You need faith too, perhaps even more! ». This way the foundation of his beliefs becomes untouchable and he can continue to believe in the existence of his soul without outside threat.

Are our thoughts already attuned to the rules of logic? Or is that something that we have to acquire, and get our thought to be governed by?

Let's play with this a bit. So we're not born with the capacity to think clearly, we acquire that ability by learning of the rules of logic, and getting our thoughts to correspond to these rules? Is that how it goes.

No.

Logic is just the formalization of productive problem solving thinking.

We are born with the desire and ability to figure things out; it is a survival trait that was evolutionarily successful.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(31-08-2015 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote: What I am looking for is a reconciliation between the neurochemistry of the brain, and rational thinking. So if you want to say anything about rational thinking, including the rules of logical etc...I'm hoping to see you establish a connection between that and it's interaction with the chemical makeup of our brains. Our neurochemistry is not governed by the rules of logic, but the laws of physics.

You're asking for too much too soon. We're not there yet.

Not everything has an answer available to us at this time; that says nothing about whether it will become available or not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(31-08-2015 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote: What I am looking for is a reconciliation between the neurochemistry of the brain, and rational thinking. So if you want to say anything about rational thinking, including the rules of logical etc...I'm hoping to see you establish a connection between that and it's interaction with the chemical makeup of our brains. Our neurochemistry is not governed by the rules of logic, but the laws of physics.

You're asking for too much too soon. We're not there yet.

Not everything has an answer available to us at this time; that says nothing about whether it will become available or not.

Yet we're at point where we can say free-will doesn't exist given what we know about neurology, but we're not at the point that free thinking doesn't exist?

We're not at a point in which we could say there is likely to be no difference between the feeling, sensation of thinking rationally, and actually thinking rationally at the level of the brain?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are born with the desire and ability to figure things out; it is a survival trait that was evolutionarily successful.

We are born with a "sensation" that makes problem solving satisfying, pleasurable. The same way we're born with "sensations" that make sex pleasurable. Without this sensation we wouldn't be doing a lot of problem solving, or procreating. But that sensation need not be elicited by actually solving the problem. It can be elicited just by believing you did, even though you actually didn't. Or in other words beliefs that are true can elicit that sensation, as well as beliefs that are false that you believe are true.

The Christian worldview solves a variety of problems for me, questions about our moral senses, why do we desire to live our lives meaningfully, why something rather than nothing, etc.... And continues to elicit that sensation. I'm always findings things that reaffirm my beliefs, even as I dwell among those that don't believe. It could be that my worldview is false, as you undoubtedly believe, and that I'm just seeing things that reaffirm my belief, and not particularly observant of things that don't. That things which reaffirm my beliefs evoke that sensation, while things that might cast doubt on it, support an alternative view, don't.

Mother nature doesn't care whether I believe what is true or not. It could just be that these false beliefs, false religious beliefs are beneficial for my survival and procreation, and true beliefs are not. It perhaps explains why our brains are far from finely tuned for truth, our love of narratives, cognitive biases, propensity to so easily believe falsehoods, our tendencies to scapegoat, to seek self-justification, etc... all speaks of a mind quite attuned to believe lies.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Not everything has an answer available to us at this time; that says nothing about whether it will become available or not.

Yet we're at point where we can say free-will doesn't exist given what we know about neurology, but we're not at the point that free thinking doesn't exist?

We're not at a point in which we could say there is likely to be no difference between the feeling, sensation of thinking rationally, and actually thinking rationally at the level of the brain?

We are at a point SOME people looking at the info and data say it and others looking at it don't. It's actually not really a point yet where we are strongly in one way yet but some people are thinking they have it and want to push the envelope ahead to publicly so they know science is verging on these questions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(01-09-2015 06:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: We are at a point SOME people looking at the info and data say it and others looking at it don't. It's actually not really a point yet where we are strongly in one way yet but some people are thinking they have it and want to push the envelope ahead to publicly so they know science is verging on these questions.

Ah okay, so we're not at a point where we can rule out "free-will" based on our understanding of neurology or the laws of physics, or at least not in a way that we can rule it out strongly. Are we at a point that we can rule it out with some degree of confidence?

Are we at a point where we can strongly rule out dualism?

Are we at a point where we can strongly affirm materialistic monism?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."